On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, morenisco at cdsl.cl wrote: > Dag Wieers wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > [...] > >>> If you put a *HEADER* on your page which states that *this* one document >>> is licensed under the GDFL and *NOT* under a CC license, I am *not* >>> happy with that, but I think it could work. >>> >>> Anyone having a problem with that? >> >> Yes, I prefer not to have content with different licenses because it may >> become a management nightmare at some point. Especially if content is >> being merged at some point or being rewritten. >> >> There is an advantage in keeping things simple. >> >> Why is the CC license not sufficient ? Why does the author not want to >> dual-license or relicense his content ? > > Because I prefer GFDL. I prefer and I want give all the rights over the > document, instead start providing some rights. I feel more confortable and > overall free with GFDL. You have that right. > Anyway, I'm not sure to publish more documents in the CentOS wiki, this is > not being a good experience for me. Is difficult to publish documentation > here. And after have explained what and where I want to contribute, I was > almost forced to re-licence or change the licence of my documentation (and > you didn't think that someone could want to keep his freedom and publish > his documentation with the original licence that he choose?). > > Bye. Why do you feel turned down when one person in a community expresses his opinion ? Ralph asked what people thought, I gave my opinion. You are free to feel hurt by what I said, but this was not specifically targeted at you, you are simply the first person to raise the problem and as such we need to discuss it in general. Bye. -- -- dag wieers, dag at centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
